Chief
political reporter Adam Nagourney modeled the NYT's conventional wisdom
on Campaign 2009 perfectly, emphasizing all three of the Times'
campaign themes in his Wednesday "news analysis," "A Year After Dousing, Republicans' Hope Is Rekindled[1]." The text box: "Republicans win but face continued upheaval."

First, Nagourney recited the "deep divisions" cliche:

The
Republican victories in the races for New Jersey and Virginia governors
put the party in a stronger position to turn back the political wave
President Obama unleashed last year, setting the stage for Republicans
to raise money, recruit candidates and ride the excitement of an
energized base as the party heads into next year's midterm elections.

But
a Democratic victory in an upstate New York Congressional district -
after an ideologically pitched battle between moderates and
conservatives over how best to lead Republicans back to power -
signaled that the Republican Party faces continued upheaval. The
Democratic victory came over a conservative candidate who, with the
enthusiastic backing of national conservative leaders and well-financed
grass-roots organizations, had forced out a Republican candidate who
supported abortion rights and gay rights.

The
results in the New Jersey and Virginia races underscored the
difficulties Mr. Obama is having transforming his historic victory a
year ago into either a sustained electoral advantage for Democrats or a
commanding ideological position over conservatives in legislative
battles.

....

Still, even as
Republicans celebrated their first wisp of good news in more than a
year, they confronted results likely to fuel a continuation of the
arguments that have torn the party with increased intensity in recent
days.

That upstate race drew national attention after
conservatives pushed aside the Republican Party and rallied around
their preferred candidate, Douglas L. Hoffman on the Conservative Party
ticket, asserting that the party should back only fervent
conservatives, rather than accept candidates who veered from party dogma on issues like abortion and financial restraint.

If a Republican agrees with the Democrats on both social and fiscal issues, what's left that's actually Republican?

Next up for Nagourney: The "moderate" argument:

In
those two states, which, in their size and diversity, might offer a
better testing ground for a party looking for new approaches, Mr. Christie and Mr. McDonnell won after decidedly playing down their conservative views on social issues.
Their relentless focus on jobs and the economy - voters in both states
listed those as their top issues in exit polls - appeared to blunt the
effort of Democrats to undercut the candidates by pointing to their
history of conservatism on social issues.

Nagourney moved on to the third point: These off-year elections don't matter anyway.

For Republicans, the results on Tuesday were welcome news after one of the party's toughest years. But
the victories occurred on a relatively small playing ground. And in an
off-year election, far fewer voters turn out than in a general election.

The
results will certainly lift the Republican Party for some period. Yet
history suggests they will not necessarily predict what will happen in
the far more consequential races next year, when 39 governors' seats,
38 Senate seats and the entire House is up for re-election.

Well,
sometimes they do predict: The GOP swept New Jersey and Virginia in
1993, which was followed by a 54-seat gain and control of the House of
Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

Nagourney was much more confident of the predictive value of a special congressional election in an August 2006 story [2](scroll down), an election actually won by Republican Brian
Bilbray, albeit in a race closer than anticipated. Nagourney's front-page story
hailed the result as a resounding victory...for the Democrats: "Narrow
Victory by G.O.P. Signals Fall Problems."

- Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch[3], an MRC project tracking the New York Times.

Federal employees and military personnel can donate to the Media Research Center through the Combined Federal Campaign or CFC. To donate to the MRC, use CFC #12489. Visit the CFC website for more information about giving opportunities in your workplace.